1759 metų „Ziwato“ „u“ ir „iu“ kamieno daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIII (2005), 91-99 1759 metu Ziwato u ir iu kamieno daiktavardziai ir jy raida The article presents an analysis and a systematic description of the SONATA VAICIAKAUSKIENE Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas inflection of u and iu stem nouns in the 18th century Zemaitian Ziwatas. The evolution of these inflectional types and the possible causes of changes are examined with the aid of internal reconstruction and external comparison. The data thus obtained are compared with those of the nominal inflection system of the modern North Zemaitian dialect of Kretinga. Current linguistic researches unquestionably allow us to say that the Ziwatas of 1759 is the best monument of the Skiy' dialect of the Narrow Land of the 18th century. The publication presents the phonological system of the dialect, the morphological features of the grammar in a clear and consistent manner. ir Jau Biiga (1958: 561-578), analyzing the phonetic changes of vowels in Lithuanian dialects, daZnai Ziwato in fixed ZodZiy forms. Since the morphology of Ziwato is archaic, it is appropriate to compare the present paradigms of noun change in the Kretingiskiy dialect of the ir monument of Sio ra8tija, to draw attention to the differences in the development of démesj j jy. Thus, the purpose of this article is to describe the later development of Ziwato and their root nouns and, most importantly, to compare them with the present Siaurés yesterday Zemaiciy kretingiskiy dialect? daiktavardziy exchange system. In the thesis, based on the internal reconstruction and comparative method, the historical processes of the word development, other causes and motives are explained. About Ziwato ra’yba ne already ra8yta (Places Zr. Girdenis 1972: 173-191, 1980: 111-116, 2001: 292-326; Girdenis, Girdeniené 1997: 11-44; Girdenis, Skirmantas 1998: vii—xiv, 292-326; Vaitiakauskyté 2001: 119-133, 2002a: 4-7; 2002b: 223). 2. u IR iu KAMIENO DAIKTAVARDZIU PARADIGMOS Visi u ir iu kamieno daiktavardiiai yra vyriSkosios giminés, turi septynis linksnius (vardininka, kilmininka, naudininka, galininka, jnagininka, vietininka ir SauksmininAbout the fact that Znwatas is spoken in the Kretinga apyhnkiy dialect of the Zemaitijos region (Girdenis 1972: 173-191; Girdenis, Girdeniené 1997: 11-19; Girdenis, Skirmantas 1998: vii-xiv). 2 In the following, §i is abbreviated in dialect: SVZK. 92 | SONATA VAICIAKAUSKIENE ka), three numbers (singular, plural and binary); 1u root nouns differ from u root only in the softness of the consonant in the stem. 1 The lens. u KAMIENAS Singular V. dmogus 1,, ~ Zmitogds V. sunus 121, ~ sinus K, Zmogaws 2,, ~ Zmitogdus K, N. Zmoguy 9,, ~ Zmuogdu G. émogu 2, ~ Zmiiogo In, Zmoguy 214, ~ Zmitogou S. émogaw 25,, ~ Zmitogau 2 STONE Double __G. du funu 117,, ~dd snd Plural of émogumi 41,, émogu 304, ~ Zmiogdmi, Zmitogd Vt. émogu 193,, TABLE. pu fufu 72,, ~ stent /stenitn _ N. weight 289,, ~ swntims /swnéms funus G. 59, ~ stnits In. Minutes 63,, ~ in seconds See Danguly 87,, ~ dongi sé S. sunus 143,, ~ sinus Singular V. karalus 1,, ~ kara.los K. karalaws 18,, ~ kardldus Plural V. prieteley 238,,, ~ prietelé K. karalu 113,, ~ kara.lu N. karaluy 36, ~ kardlou G. karalu 205,, ~ kara.lo In. karalumi 191,,, karalu 190,, ~ kara.lomi, karald Vt. Royu 233,,, WILNIAWw I,, ~ rioj6u, vilidit N. karalems 34,, ~ karaléms G. karalus 37,, ~ karaltis In. razkatieys 27, ~ raskazés See razkaziufy312,,~ rdskazitse 8. karalaw 113,~ kardidu 8. karaley 109, ~ karalé- 1759 m. Ziwato u 1R iu KAMIENAS | 93 2.1, The ending of the singular noun is -us, e.g. : Standing, jogey wyinas Man Jenas, wardu Symeonas, Dwafes fzwetos prypylditas 38,, ,; Efi karalus zidu yfzgymynes Dowida garbingas, kurfay wardon Diewa karalaw pagyrtas ateiti 113, in SVZK dialect the singular noun has the ending -os ~ -us (émilogs zZmogis, kard.irs ~ karalius). The reversal of the final vowel u to j 0 indicates that there was a short vowel in the final before the reversal, cf. la. tirgus,,turgus“, got. sunus, ‘stinus’, skr, stintis; but Zr. Zinkevicius (1980: 232). The question arises, how was the final -us of the singular noun pronounced in the Ziwato dialect? Ziwato's u sound also means kretingiSkiy 0; more about this in Zr. Vaiciakauskyidae (2002a: 13). 2.2, The singular noun final is Sios: -aws = [aus] and -aus, e.g. : Neftowiu aap daykta dwarna, ale aap dufzy Zmogaws pakarna 44.,.; This Majeftot karalaws yfzwyfur pajzweftas, nes nu Dwafes S. Seney buwa yJzprowitas 30,,,,; Apey antgymyma Pona Jezufa Chriftufa Karalaus Dangaws 24,, In the comparative dialect, the singular origin coincides with the Ziwato form (Zmiiogdus ~ Zmogaiis, kardldus ~ king). 2nd ed. pg. market (-us < -aus), got. sunaus; South Sios galiinés kilmés dar Zr. MaZiulis (1970: 263-272; Zinkeviéius 1980: 232). 2.3. The singular noun has a -uy = [ou]* ending, e.g. : Dagu mizernam émoguy atwerfiu 157,; Pagriza, yr on nuwgos winteres ang watgi padieje Karaluy Dangaws 57a In the SVZK dialect, the singular noun has a final -ou (Zmiloggu ~ zméguo, karaléu~ karaliuo) and coincides with the singular noun of the o stem (see also Vaiciakauskyté 2002a: 14). Linguists disagree on the origin of the word. Some scholars—Endzelynas (1957: 123-124), Kazlauskas (1959: 22, 1968: 221), Zinkevi¢ius (1980: 233)—think that this is a flexion of the trunk, a flexion of the stem. Maziulis (1970: 272) tends to think that the final *-0 of the u stem is not borrowed from the i8 o stem, but originated in the balty *-au, representing the form of the iu stem. The most logical assumption is that $i galtiné is taken from the stem, especially since neither in the old writings nor in the dialects has been found a relic of the u stem (Zinkevi¢ius 1966: 248). In addition, the u consonant type was not abundant in Indo-European languages. He was also a member of the 1959–60 season's All-American team (1959–60). The inflection -ou of the verb in question is derived from *-6 (Girdenis 2001: 377); as well as o stem (cf. Vai¢iakauskyté 2002a: 14). This is probably the generalized- ,,oxytonic* variant. 2.4. The singular ending has a final -u, e.g. : Teypo yr tu turiek uz Sietona tq Zmogu; kurfay atrodyi mitafty kunyfzku stuzba Diewa 88,,,,; Po anu eyta Jfzweciawfe Panna, Karalu Dangaws yr ziemes ant rqku fawa neédama 39,.. Kretingikiy In the Snekta, the final place of the discussed verb is -0 Gmilog? I can, dear. ie ~ karliy). Si galiiné kildintina i§ senovinés lietuviu ‘uni. In the Zemaitiu dialect, none of the final *-y and *-u are replaced by the same -9 (VaiDel reconstruction of this final Zr. Girdenis, Girdeniené (1997: 12). 94 | SONATA VAICIAKAUSKIENE Gakauscidae 2002a: 18). Thus, in a morpheme that is never crossed, the vowel is broadened u j 9. Apparently, the final io part of the Ziwato verb was already pronounced as in the present ir Kretingi8kiu dialect. This is evidenced by the fact that the final of the ir singular denominator -us is pronounced as -os (but Zr. 2.1.). 2.5. The singular of the genitive is Sios: -u ir -umi, e.g. : nes fmertis <...> kaypo fzafzulietis fu Zmogu eyta <...> 304, ,; Sytay wify yfzganity, yr par tawi Gods Zmogumi turem 290,, ,,; <...> then tiefa talbi, that afz efmi King, because afz Karalu yr uzgymiaw <...> 192,, ,.; Pytotas ktawJe Jesus was buried in the tomb, and his remains 0 were buried in the tombstonar e. 191, ,, In the comparative dialect, the singular indefinite infinitive is -o (Zmuog’~ zmogii, kéral’ karalit), ~ which, as a singular noun, ir coincides with the final of the su o trunk. Ziwato's analysis shows that In the middle of the 18th century, the Kretingians quickly used the singular form su -omi, which is the end of the i§ stem ir - Me. The infrequent final vowel in the dialect indicates that the original final was *-mi (Biiga 1958: 566-567). Tikra galtiné turret bits -mi, plg. s. sl. synems. Zemaiéiy singular jnagininka -mi is a newcomer. Apparently ji was generalized by the plural inagininka *-month; plg. Maziulis (1970: 210-213). Forms su -mi are considered to be the old u genders of the root singular of the noun. In some ancient monuments of language, the rear - You still have me. ir u Tribal nicknames (DaukSos Postal code: bdisumi, brdgumi; In the West: teysumi, sotumi) (Zinkevigius 1957: 23). Strengthen u ir o saveika stones In the Zemai¢iy dialect, apparently, iSsttimé is an old inaginnik flexion. The final -mi is very unproductive, because it lacks the final consonant ir (exclusive i trunk) (more about it Zr. Vai¢iakauskyté 2002a: 54-55). Thus, the u final form of the trunk singular was generalized according to the more productive type of masculine — inflection. — Ziwatas captures the demise of the old form of the gnawing, the ir rise of the t. y. io new, the trunk flexion. In later language monuments, the latter form is more common. This is especially true of Zemaiciy ra3tus (Kazlauskas 1959: 24). As the examples of the text under analysis show, in the 18th century Siaurés The Zemaites of Kretinga used the old singular forms of jnagininko more often. 2.6. The singular pronoun galtinés is Sios: -u, -uy = [or], -qw = [ou]*, -uj, -ujy, e.g.: afz negalu nie <...> jokios kaltibes atrafty tamy émogu, diet kurios turietus myrty nu <...> 193, ,,; Pytotas teypag tare: afz rqndu ne pryCinas fmerte tamy Zmoguy 214, .; O now wiel pazwaleny fu wirefniuiu Ziamaytyfzka yfztumocitas drukawotas yr Vilniaw 1,, ,.; O kq yfarysi on winter will be yfzryftas yr Danguj 88,, ,; <...> diet munes, linkfminkieties dyiawkieties, yr nes zaptotas jufu ita Dangujy 63, ,, In the SvzK dialect, the singular locutor's galtiné is -or (torg6u ~ turguo(je), rliojéu ~ rdjuo(je). This rear can be lifted if *-djén (Girdenis 1962: 97; 2001: 377). * _Only one singular placeholder occurs in the text su Sia galine (Zr. (see example). Galtiné -ou is a nasal consonant, po so the vowel, apparently, n, todél galéjo beiti nasalized. ir 1759 ZiwaTo u AND iu STONE | 95 Linguists disagree dél The evolution of the ir origins of this funny thing. Kazlauskas (1959: 26-29, 1968. 156-159) believes that the local postposition *-en Gia is stuck on *turgo type forms. The latter can be compared su s. indy local form stindu, since diphthong *-ou in Lithuanian could be translated 6 (aukStai¢iy uo). So the forms to which the postposition grew *-en, old iSveida galéjo byiti *turgo. Thus, the old form of the singular pronoun of u the root baltiSkoji is *turg6°. This was the origin of the torpedo. PerSasi iivada, kad Zemaiciy singular pronoun final -or < *-6. Véliau dél morphologinio trumpéjimo The end of the word fell - Yeah. Probably the lower singular locality is older than *-6 the upper one. -yeah. (Zinkevicius 1966: 248-249). The occasional occurrence of the singular pronoun form funy in the text under analysis is apparently an accidental 153,,, proofreading error, but it may be a sporadic consequence of okamiene. ir 2.7. Single The rear of the soldier is -aw = [au], e.g. : waykiele zidu fzakieles aliwa mede pirmu nezdamy, giedoie, yfzganik mus karalaw zidu 113, . In the comparative dialect the singular Sauksmininkas coincides su Ziwato text Sauksmininku (stndu sina, kardld@u~ ~ karaliau). Galinae -au < *-du, plg. got. I'm sounding. It is a pure su stem in the base stem vowel (Zinkevicius 1980. 234). 2.8, Plural root nounZiy finite u is -us, 0 iu stem — -ey, for example. : Ugpewna fawa pyktufius Tiewus fekate, nes jus yr paciu tu Dogs, kurii Prarakus ugmusienieie <...> 121,, ,.; Apafztalay, yr wyfy priteley munys nu yfzwaykscioje, nie cokie nie mam, kurfay mqn padietum 238... , In the present kretingi8kiy dialect in general, the whole plural paradigm has passed j (His trunk. Plural denominator finalis is -a, or -e (stind: ~ sinai, kardalé: ~ kings). u inflection of the plural noun of the stem in the ancient XVI-XVII century Lithuanian language monuments iSlikusi sveika. Net In the works written on the basis of the Zemaiciy dialect in the 18th-19th centuries, there is still the i8likusiy root plural u noun (plg. Kazlauskas 1959: 32). This is evidenced by ir the analyzed Ziwato text (Zr. the first example). Although, on the other hand, Ziwato ZodZio nuans in the plural paradigm could retain the old flexion of the stem u due to the frequency Sio ZodZio vartojimo’ ir 8io The Word Sacred. Be to, it may be that the author sought to avoid the digraph -aa in the lowercase In the back of this funny thing. It should not be forgotten that the final of the u root plural of the noun has been preserved in the eastern border of the UteniSkiy dialect, e.g. : su Lelitinuose (Rinkauskiené 1999: 23). Based on tuo, what has been said, it can be said that the trunk o began to crawl the trunk so j u long ago. ne But in the same In Ziwate, as the example shows, root nouns are generally used iu with the root ending; root nouns still have the old su jo plural form of the iu denominator, For the origin and development of the S10 verb see also. Maziulis (1970: 286–287). The analyzed text does not contain any more forms of the root nouné1y plural denominator, as well as plural noun, final noun, except for the noun Zmogus. Tatiau ir ir The plural paradigm of this noun is generally out of the root. 96 | SONATA VAICIAKAUSKIENE senuosiuose lietuviy in language monuments (Kazlauskas 1959: 31), but ir In the 16th century writings, the gender of the stem is frequently mentioned. Galtinés -tis dykima Zemaitiuose (in general, u the plural form of the trunk) could be easily o explained if Siaurés Zemaitiy galiine -o kildintume i§ *-d (occlusive ar circumflex), e.g.: the final of the denominator of the binary ir (if-n)-0 < *(stin)-di (Girdenis 2000a. 334). Siaurés Zemaiéiy -u virto j -o po Circumflecting ir open acutiny galtiniy trumpéimo. The abbreviated plural denominator had the singular denominator. sutapti su Probably dél Trunk rear u -iis i8stiime ir productive trunk rear 0 - Ai. Final of plural denominator -tis kilmé iki Siol néra aiSki. Kazlauskas (1968: 224) believes that the form of the discussed verb is derived from i§ *-uues, derived u from the plural denominator of the root a dél of the root jtakos. Zinkeviéius (1980: 234) This rear also leads i8 *-uues, which was made of stone dél su kity u linksniy itakos, if only the final one -dis néra analoginis darinys pagal kity kamieny modeli’. Probably plural denominator finalé -it was introduced by analogy to another stem. In both the biidvardiiy and the nounziy paradigms, ir the main verbs are the noun adjectives. Probably apskatamy ir nountavardziy plural denominator -iis could arise by analogy: if dgs. gal. ‘gerds : dgs. ward. *gerds, that's dgs. gal. *stinus : dgs. ward. x, i§ Gia x = sinus. Plural Subjunctive coincides with su the denominator both Ziwato text, both in the present ir kretingiskiy area. 2.9. Plural genitive finite or -u - 'u, for example. : Packaging mqn, curved yz tu the two of diamonds Tiewa fawa 117,, ,,; Buwa tafay fugrizymas yfz Egyptian Apey JSevety Three Karalu 44, , In the SVZK dialect the plural noun form coincides with su paliudyta Ziwato (st-nu: ~ sini, torg* ~ turgu, kara. " ~ karaliy). (Ju trunk shape coincides su (The sexes of his trunk. Probably u the trunk (as in other ir stems) the kiréiated nobleman's final was still pronounced with a nasal vowel, especially su since in the present comparative dialect many ir forms are used su -n ar su -m (Zinkevicius 1966. 77; Vaitiakauskyté 2002a: 18). 2.10. The plural noun trunk is u -ums, oiu stem — -ems, e.g. : The crown is a strong rolling, which is yfz stone gems, where there is a Diewas Sunums fawa yfzrinktiefyms, yr kaypo parasita ira Pfalmiefy 298,, ,,; Jesus was a saint, a faithful wife, a king, and a mother. yr Pagonu 34... ,. In the comparative dialect, the final form of the plural noun is (His trunk (su. ndms ~ siinams, karaléms ~ karaliams). ukamien ancient demu *-wmus (*stinumus), where the coal lies -ugalian ir -mus (plg. o the root plural forms of the noun; zr. Vaiciakauskyte 2002a: 19). The evolution of the final verb was probably as follows: *-umus > -omos > - Oms. As shown by the analysis of the ancient literature (Kazlauskas 1959: 34-35), In some writings of the XVI-XVII centuries the root u plural user still has the old root u - Part S108 Galinés kilmés ir raidos dar Zr. Maziulis (1970: 297-304). In 1759 Ziwato u 1R iu KAMIENAS | 97 flexion, although, it must be said, the u stem is rarely used in ancient Lithuanian language monuments. Ziwatas shows that in the 18th-19th centuries, apparently, the plural forms of the noun of the stem were still widely used. Although, as already mentioned, in the plural paradigm of Ziwato Zodzio sinus, the old flexion of the u stem could be retained dél daZno Sio Zodzio use. iu stem plural noun is *-wmus, but already in the 16th-17th centuries Lithuanian language monuments the stem plural io $io verb forms (Kazlauskas 1959: 34). Ziwato all the nouns of the mentioned root have the plural gender of the root. io 2.11. The plural finaliné is -us, e.g. : Tynay diet virtue Sopule, which is a hard shell, is hard to work with, because the big bones are soft and feel like they are holding the Sun. 32,,.; Yfeleydufi Karalus feweciawfe Maria fu S. Juzupu, giwena anoy Szopo pry prakarta ligi kieturiolektay dyinay <...> 37,, 4. In Kretingiskiy dialect, the plural suffix coincides with the Ziwat text suffix (st-nis ~ sinus, kéraliis ~ karalits). Linguists disagree on the origin of the vowel form in question, plg. MaZiulis (1970: 297), Kazlauskas (1968: 225); u stem plural final flexion -us < *-iis, as corresponds to i stem final -is < *-is (Bia 1958: 568; Zinkevitius 1980: 235, 1966: 251). Thus the final *-is could have appeared in other examples. The presence of the narrow -u < *-t in the plural final form certainly supports the idea that the circumflex gallinés were shortened first in Zemaičiai, and the akitinés were shortened later (Girdenis 2001: 172, 2000a: 405-406). 2.12, The plural noun roots u are -wmis, oiu kamieno — -eys = [e's], e.g. : Blessed are those who do it, because anyi Sunumis Goddess bus wadinty 63,, ,,; <...> when anfay budamas Ponu fawa y garby neje razkadieys, ale werkymays yr ubagifty 27,, Dabartinés $VZK dialecté plural inagininko finalé coincides su 0 with the stem (plg. Vaiciakauskyidae 2002a: 19), (torg@-s ~ tutgais, karalés ~ karaliais). In Ziwato's text, as the examples show, the plural noun still had the old -umis of the iSlaikes u stem, which consists of the stem -u and the old final *-mis. in their root noun paradigm, the universally prevailing gender of the root. 2.13. The final form of the plural pronoun is -ufy = [use], e.g. : Mr. Joseph on that atfakie katbiedamas: Btagastowitas efi, Symonay Baryonay, because no kunas ne krawjes ne apjowyie taw to, ale Tiewus muna, kurfay ira Dangufy 87, ,,; Then tuw ciefu tabiawfey linkjmifes kunay nuwarginty, ne kaypo kuryi razkaziufy y{zkawoty 312,,,, In the past, Ziwato's plural placeholder form with the final -ufu was found (cf. with the i stem plural placeholder forms, cf. Vaitiakauskyté 2002a: 60), bitent: <...> weyziek jogiey antgyme ne razkaziufu, aley ubagifzkoy fmyrdyncioy ftayneliey, on plykos yr myktos ziemes terp badiftiu <...> 25-26,,. In the comparative dialect, the phonetic coincidence of (Jo and (u stem plural pronouns, cf.: *miskts(e) and *turgtis(e) (turgd-s(e) ~ turgiis(e), vaiSd-s(e) ~ vaisitis(e) (Zinkevičius 1966; 251). Almost all Siaurés Zemai¢iai iSlaiko unabbreviated plural localis ending -tisi. Morphologically abbreviated forms with the final -is are used only in Kretingos apylinkésé, Zr. Aleksandraviéius (1963: 104), Girdenis (2000a: 393, 2000b. 17). Perhaps the spoken verb -gaila could be derived from the i8 *6 root plural local forms, Zr. 98 | Sonata Vaciakauskiene (plg. o Vai¢iakauskyté 2002a: dar 21); zr. Girdenis (2000b: 336). Time used plural genitive gender final su -su is an archaic plural pronoun (pla¢iau zr. Vaitiakauskyté 2002b: 233). 2.14. The last part of the noun's plural suffix of the substantive root in question is -u = [9], pv: buwa wyinas A man with a bow du holding a gun approaches the first door: the gun is on the door of the y seat, and o there is water, but no fire. 117,, ,,. In the present comparative dialect, the noun plural ending forms of pa su palled Ziwato (do stind ~ di siinu). Lithuanian numerals di, dvi vestini i8 *d6, “two. Thus the male noun of the plural of the final (by the way, as a ir denominator) -o abbreviated i8 *-6 °. 3. ERRORS 1.1759 Zivato's systematic analysis showed that in the middle of the 18th century in the Kretingiskiy dialect there was a transition from non-productive to productive noun stones. The paradigm of the current KretingiSkiy dialect has changed since the middle of the 18th century. 2. uir (Qu root biidvardziy (before nounZiy) paradigms were influenced by productive types of conjugation, so u root nouns in Ziwato text at least in some cases sporadically could still have the old plural nominative, noun genitive endings. There is now a stone sculpture in its place. ir 0 3. Ziwat records the u demise of the old singular inagininko form of the trunk of the ir new, i.e. (His trunk, gender demise. 4. The u abbreviated root of the plural denominator had to coincide with su the singular denominator. Probably dél This is the backend -ds ir i8sttimé the productive o of the stem's final -ai. 5. Jau 18th centuryMid- -century Kretingians (In the paradigm of the Ju stem plural, (The shape of its trunk. LITERACY Auexsanpravicius, J. 1963: The final development of noun change characteristir ics in the Kretingos dialect. Linguistics 9, 101-117. Boca, K. 1958: Selected finds 1. Sudare Z. Zinkeviéius. Vilnius State Political ir Science and Literary Publishers. Envzeiynas, J, 1957: Balty kalby garsai ir formos. Vilnius: Valstybine politines ir mokslinés literatiros leidykla, Giroenis, A. 1962: Morphology of TikShy dialect and the creation of Zodziy (handwriting). Ginvenis, A. 1972: Baltskuju *g, *dj refleksai 1759 m.,Zyvate- *. Baltistica 8 (2), 173-191. Girpenis, A. 1980: On one prepositional form in the 18th century Siaures Zemaitiy kretingiSkiu dialect. Balttstica 16 (2), 111-116. ® For the origin of the denominator and adjective of the double number, see also Zr. Madiulis (1970: 181–182). ° This can only be claimed by iSklau su (but plg. 2.8, 2.10 ir 2.12). 1759 mM. Ziwato u 1R iu KAMIENAS | 99 Ginpenis, A., Ginventent, D. 1997: meny 1759 ,,Ziwato" index Vilnius: Mokslo enciklopedijy ir leidykla Ginvenis, A., and Skiewantas, P. 1998: 1759 meay ,,Ztwatas“ (facsimilar publication). New York: University of 1r New York Press, 2000a: A. The work of the mouth 1. Vilnius: Institute of ir Science and Technology. Girvenis, 2000b: A. The work of the office: 2, Vilnius: Institute of ir Science and Technology. Ginvewis, A, 2001: Language Studies 3, Vilnius: Institute of ir Science and Technology. Kaztauskas, J. 1959: Daiktavarddhi ()u lnksnivning decay. Linguistics 1, 51-67. Kaztauskas, J. 1968: Historical grammar of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mintis. Madius, V. 1970: Balty other ir Indo-European languages relations. Vilnius: Mintis. Mrs Rinkauskienė, R 1999Ryty aukstaitiy uteniskiy vardazodis: present-day ir historical development (dissertation). Vilnius. VaidiaKauskyte, S. 2001. 1759 ,,Ziwato* io, iio o, kamieny noun development, Linguistics ir jy 50 (1), 119-133. VaicrakauskyTe, S. 2002a: 1759 ,,Ziwato“ noun conjugation system (dissertation), Vilnius. VaiéiakauskyTt, 2002b S. 1759 ,,Ziwato* i ir consonant root nouns 1r jy raida. Baltistica 36 (2), 223-236. Zinxevicvis, Z. 1957: The history of the Lithuanian language. Vilnius: Valstybiné politinés mokslinés literatiiros leidykla. ir Zivxevicws, Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zixhevicws, Z, 1980° Historical grammar of Lithuanian language 1. Vilnius: Science. Sonata Vaiciakauskienė Department of Lithuanian Language Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas T. Sevéenkos g. 31, Vilnius